ok just push that " Red Button " and end this misery ............
Topic: World War III - page 13. (Read 34327 times)
If there is a world war 3 at least there will be no world war 4 because there will be nobody left to fight each other except a few cockroaches maybe.
What makes you think that? I don't understand the logic behind your post.
If ww3 was a nuclear war it is likely that nothing would be left only cockroaches.So there would be no ww4 because cockroaches dont have world wars afaik.
when there are Ukrainian people living and the Russian were put there in the Sowjet time by strategical reasons?
It seems like you don't know what really happened in the beginning of 20th century, because actual events were opposite to your description. These lands were parts of Russia/RSFSR until Lenin decided to move some western regions of russian republic into newly formed ukrainian state. This decision was made in order to make this ukrainian state self-sufficient in economical terms. There were 0% (yep, zero percent) of ukrainians on these lands until the middle of 1900s, but then some part of population was moved there from western ukraine. So if somebody wants to expel russians from the ukraine, then he will face with their decision to move away along with lands.text in RU, sorry, but it's special for Balthazar
Аркадий Бабченко
История, однако, увлекательнейшая штука оказалась. Вот, например, взять исконные земли. Ну, с Крымом все понятно. Исконно русских земель там отродясь не было. Хошь как хошь, а по принципу "исконности" придется отдать Греции. С куском Краснодарского края. Патрей, Фанагория, горгиппия - вот это вот все.
Ну, Тамань ладно. Не очень то и наше как бы.
Хуже с Волгой.
Астрахань придется отдать евреям. Ну а что делать? Самая что ни на есть исконная Хазария, ничего не попишешь. Дербент - персам. Извините, дорогие дагестанцы, но это так.
Среднюю Волгу, Татарстан, Ульновскую область, Чувашию, Башкирию и кусок Камы - болгарам. Как ни крути, но все ж таки именно болгары являются наиболее прямыми потомками булгар. Они же, кстати, могут и за Крым поспорить. Хоть и не греки, конечно, но тоже поисконней нас будут в этом вопросе.
Урал. Вот Урал реально жалко. Но придется отдать. Венграм. Унгры, мадьяры - угорское племя (тюркоязычное штоли? Не помню уже) ушедшее в Европу с исконного Южно-Восточного Поуралья. Вы как хотите, канешна, но вот Урал мне реально пц как жалко.
Ну, все что восточнее и севернее - даже говорить не о чем. Биармия, или, по другой версии, Парма, собственно, со своей Пермью может делать что хочет - это их исконные земли.
А вот всю Сибирь… Даже и не Знаю. Монголам, что ли? Чингизиды, Улус Джучи - вот это все. Ну или исконным сибирским народностям. Пусть сами, короче, разбираются. В любом случае, к русским это уж совершенно точно никакого отношения не имеет.
Ну, Сахалин в Курилами - тут все понятно.
А вот Новгород Великий жалко почти так же, как и Урал. Но ничего не поделаешь - исконные балто-финские земли. Кого там было больше, балтов или финнов, не помню, но факт в том, что славян тут не было до самого Ивана Грозного, который всех новгородцев и вырезал, и только после этого земли заселили московитами. Именно поэтому Новгород воевали все, кому не лень, начиная от Олегна - чужой он нам. Чужой.
Как и Альдейгьюборг, в который и пришел некий авторитетный скандинавский пацан Рюрик Трувор Синеус (может, их и трое было - черт их знает) со своей братвой и где сел править Русью. Скандинавия, да. Старая Ладога сейчас называется.
Карелия, Питер - понятно, все туда же.
Псков - эстам.
Но во Москва…
Да-да, друзья мои. Москва. Златоглавая столица нашей Родины. Газманов, Кобзон, звонят колокола, старик Батурин - вот это все.
Тут тоже все плохо.
Придется отдать.
Финнам, ага.
Голядь, меря, мурома, мордва. Айбица, Чартона, Ауза. Коломенское - древнейшее фино-угорское поселение. Дяьковская культура, железный век, пятьсот лет до нашей эры - исконнее некуда. Ничего не поделаешь.
И вот знаете што? Начав читать эту вашу вражескую историю, я понял одну простую вещь.
Мединский.
Да-да, Мединский.
И никак иначе.
Ну его на хуй это ваше вражеское образование.
Крымнаш патамушта.
И точка.
when there are Ukrainian people living and the Russian were put there in the Sowjet time by strategical reasons?
It seems like you don't know what really happened in the beginning of 20th century, because actual events were opposite to your description. These lands were parts of Russia/RSFSR until Lenin decided to move some western regions of russian republic into newly formed ukrainian state. This decision was made in order to make this ukrainian state self-sufficient in economical terms. There were 0% (yep, zero percent) of ukrainians on these lands until the middle of 1900s, but then some part of population was moved there from western ukraine. So if somebody wants to expel russians from the ukraine, then he will face with their decision to move away along with lands. That might be how it turned out, but I'd say that not only are we not out of the woods yet, but also that there were several times in which it was sheer luck a nuclear war didn't start - the Cuban missile crisis comes to mind.
But there is something else you have to consider: even if not directly, these nations didn't stop fighting amongst themselves - they instead turned to proxy wars and other indirect means (though arguably no less significant for those caught up in them).
But there is something else you have to consider: even if not directly, these nations didn't stop fighting amongst themselves - they instead turned to proxy wars and other indirect means (though arguably no less significant for those caught up in them).
You are correct to say that we have had several close calls of nuclear war breaking out, however I doubt that either country likely has the balls to be the first to attack the other because of the probably consequences. I think most countries would be willing to get all the way to the brink of war, but would likely not want to cross the threshold of attacking another country with nukes.
Proxy wars are generally not as damaging to society and the world as a whole when compared to larger conflicts. Fighting is generally much more localized and done in places that are much less developed.
Sure, I don't believe anyone is crazy enough to push for a major nuclear war either, as I said above - but that doesn't change the fact that those close calls we've had in the past can still easily occur in the future; and we might not be so lucky next time.
As for proxy wars, coups, support of dictators, and whatever other means are used, they certainly aren't as immediately destructive as a major conflict would be, especially for those of us in a first world country that won't go through any of it. For anyone living through, sometimes, decades upon decades of these sorts of things however, I'm not sure they would necessarily care about the difference - dying at the hands of the local friendly dictator or with a bomb dropped on them by another nation, might not make much of a difference. Further, dismissing them as less developed and so not as important for society as a whole, ignores what part they could take, had they been given the chance. Finally, I see that line of reasoning as a sort of fallacy, in that it says that it's better for these types of policies to be followed, than a major conflict to occur - well, that ignores the obvious question: what is the reason for these conflicts to occur in the first place?
The reason we have had many close calls and not actual outbreaks of war is because countries are afraid to "pull the trigger" against other countries that have nuclear weapons.
The start of the WWIII has to happen with the strongest weapons we have - nuclear war! otherwise its not counting. What we have is the islamic revolution and its bloody enough for me. The Ukrainian are having a civil war between Rusian and Ukrainian people. Why should get this provinces independant, when there are Ukrainian people living and the Russian were put there in the Sowjet time by strategical reasons?
That might be how it turned out, but I'd say that not only are we not out of the woods yet, but also that there were several times in which it was sheer luck a nuclear war didn't start - the Cuban missile crisis comes to mind.
But there is something else you have to consider: even if not directly, these nations didn't stop fighting amongst themselves - they instead turned to proxy wars and other indirect means (though arguably no less significant for those caught up in them).
But there is something else you have to consider: even if not directly, these nations didn't stop fighting amongst themselves - they instead turned to proxy wars and other indirect means (though arguably no less significant for those caught up in them).
You are correct to say that we have had several close calls of nuclear war breaking out, however I doubt that either country likely has the balls to be the first to attack the other because of the probably consequences. I think most countries would be willing to get all the way to the brink of war, but would likely not want to cross the threshold of attacking another country with nukes.
Proxy wars are generally not as damaging to society and the world as a whole when compared to larger conflicts. Fighting is generally much more localized and done in places that are much less developed.
Sure, I don't believe anyone is crazy enough to push for a major nuclear war either, as I said above - but that doesn't change the fact that those close calls we've had in the past can still easily occur in the future; and we might not be so lucky next time.
As for proxy wars, coups, support of dictators, and whatever other means are used, they certainly aren't as immediately destructive as a major conflict would be, especially for those of us in a first world country that won't go through any of it. For anyone living through, sometimes, decades upon decades of these sorts of things however, I'm not sure they would necessarily care about the difference - dying at the hands of the local friendly dictator or with a bomb dropped on them by another nation, might not make much of a difference. Further, dismissing them as less developed and so not as important for society as a whole, ignores what part they could take, had they been given the chance. Finally, I see that line of reasoning as a sort of fallacy, in that it says that it's better for these types of policies to be followed, than a major conflict to occur - well, that ignores the obvious question: what is the reason for these conflicts to occur in the first place?
The reason we have had many close calls and not actual outbreaks of war is because countries are afraid to "pull the trigger" against other countries that have nuclear weapons.
I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth — rocks! - Einstein
This pretty much sums it up. Thats why i agree that the war fought will be only economic like previously stated, actualy it has allready begon with sanctions
that are coming from all sides.
This pretty much sums it up. Thats why i agree that the war fought will be only economic like previously stated, actualy it has allready begon with sanctions
that are coming from all sides.
Yes this is true and because of this ''Cold war'' between USA and USSR never become ''Hot war''.
In this recent conflict between Russia and USA, we will also not see real, hot war betwen nATO and Russia but ''Cold war'', mostly through economic sanctions.
I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth — rocks! - Einstein
This pretty much sums it up. Thats why i agree that the war fought will be only economic like previously stated, actualy it has allready begon with sanctions
that are coming from all sides.
This pretty much sums it up. Thats why i agree that the war fought will be only economic like previously stated, actualy it has allready begon with sanctions
that are coming from all sides.
Hope no Word war 3... Actually I don't care but I'm up for peace 
I'm Aggree with you bro
But this about the world :v
Putin confidant: "There will be war in Europe"
(DE) Putin-Vertrauter: „Es wird Krieg in Europa geben“ http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2014/07/29/putin-vertrauer-es-wird-krieg-in-europa-geben/
If there is a world war 3 at least there will be no world war 4 because there will be nobody left to fight each other except a few cockroaches maybe.
What makes you think that? I don't understand the logic behind your post.
WW3 will be fought using economic warfare. Only the smaller nations will get hit the way Ukraine did.
So that's going to wipe the human existence is it? He was talking about there will never be one because there will be no one left well in fact even if it's economics we are talking about a lot of people benefit from world war in the long run look at germany they are now a super power and US & other countries are stil recovering years after.
More likely certain nations will starve of food, water or energy. There will be civil war inside the country where bigger nation won't even need to lift a finger.
If there is a world war 3 at least there will be no world war 4 because there will be nobody left to fight each other except a few cockroaches maybe.
What makes you think that? I don't understand the logic behind your post.
WW3 will be fought using economic warfare. Only the smaller nations will get hit the way Ukraine did.
So that's going to wipe the human existence is it? He was talking about there will never be one because there will be no one left well in fact even if it's economics we are talking about a lot of people benefit from world war in the long run look at germany they are now a super power and US & other countries are stil recovering years after.
If there is a world war 3 at least there will be no world war 4 because there will be nobody left to fight each other except a few cockroaches maybe.
What makes you think that? I don't understand the logic behind your post.
WW3 will be fought using economic warfare. Only the smaller nations will get hit the way Ukraine did.
If there is a world war 3 at least there will be no world war 4 because there will be nobody left to fight each other except a few cockroaches maybe.
What makes you think that? I don't understand the logic behind your post.
If there is a world war 3 at least there will be no world war 4 because there will be nobody left to fight each other except a few cockroaches maybe.
The only chance of World War III would have to be around the middle east conflicts. I doubt this incident will rise, it'll be nothing in a month or two.
I agree, and highly doubt that theres a chance for a WW3 in the near future.
Most of the great forces are fighting remote wars, fighting not directly, but rather using other countrys as puppets.
It would be futile to start a direct war between any of the bigger forces, since they would eliminate each other in no time.
Exactly.
US is trying to bluff Russia using Georgia and Ukraine as a front men. Russia called the bluff and attack them without suffering any consequences from US retaliation.
The rest of Russia neighbors should know by now not to be depended on US and should be go on friendly term with Russia for their own survivor.
That might be how it turned out, but I'd say that not only are we not out of the woods yet, but also that there were several times in which it was sheer luck a nuclear war didn't start - the Cuban missile crisis comes to mind.
But there is something else you have to consider: even if not directly, these nations didn't stop fighting amongst themselves - they instead turned to proxy wars and other indirect means (though arguably no less significant for those caught up in them).
But there is something else you have to consider: even if not directly, these nations didn't stop fighting amongst themselves - they instead turned to proxy wars and other indirect means (though arguably no less significant for those caught up in them).
You are correct to say that we have had several close calls of nuclear war breaking out, however I doubt that either country likely has the balls to be the first to attack the other because of the probably consequences. I think most countries would be willing to get all the way to the brink of war, but would likely not want to cross the threshold of attacking another country with nukes.
Proxy wars are generally not as damaging to society and the world as a whole when compared to larger conflicts. Fighting is generally much more localized and done in places that are much less developed.
Sure, I don't believe anyone is crazy enough to push for a major nuclear war either, as I said above - but that doesn't change the fact that those close calls we've had in the past can still easily occur in the future; and we might not be so lucky next time.
As for proxy wars, coups, support of dictators, and whatever other means are used, they certainly aren't as immediately destructive as a major conflict would be, especially for those of us in a first world country that won't go through any of it. For anyone living through, sometimes, decades upon decades of these sorts of things however, I'm not sure they would necessarily care about the difference - dying at the hands of the local friendly dictator or with a bomb dropped on them by another nation, might not make much of a difference. Further, dismissing them as less developed and so not as important for society as a whole, ignores what part they could take, had they been given the chance. Finally, I see that line of reasoning as a sort of fallacy, in that it says that it's better for these types of policies to be followed, than a major conflict to occur - well, that ignores the obvious question: what is the reason for these conflicts to occur in the first place?
The only chance of World War III would have to be around the middle east conflicts. I doubt this incident will rise, it'll be nothing in a month or two.
I agree, and highly doubt that theres a chance for a WW3 in the near future.
Most of the great forces are fighting remote wars, fighting not directly, but rather using other countrys as puppets.
It would be futile to start a direct war between any of the bigger forces, since they would eliminate each other in no time.
The only chance of World War III would have to be around the middle east conflicts. I doubt this incident will rise, it'll be nothing in a month or two.
Hope no Word war 3... Actually I don't care but I'm up for peace
Jump to: